Page 48 - Heavenly Signs III by Mel Gable

46

objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine. It
describes it as “laced with Darwinism” and saying it was “inexcusable to have a book that says man descended from apes with
nothing to counterbalance it.” This story made the “York Daily” newspapers in Pennsylvania and William
Buckingham was telephoned by Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included
“communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students” to “address the topic of intelligent design -
ID in a scientifically and educationally responsible way” in public schools. He later stated that he made the call to steer
the Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert
creationism into its curriculum. Afterwards Buckingham contacted Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law
48
Center, who agreed to represent the Dover Board, and recommended the book Of Pandas and People.

On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6–3 resolving that there were to be lectures on the subject, with

Pandas as a reference book and that the following statement was to be added to their biology curriculum. The
school board's statement asserting that there are “gaps” in evolution and that it specifically is a theory “not a fact”
singled out evolution. They implied it was just a hunch, even though this is not the actual meaning of the term
“scientific theory.” The reference Of Pandas and People was used as an alternative “explanation of the origins of life.” It was
presented as though it were a scientific fact. This was in contrast to the way that evolution was described. 68

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 Fed. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688 was the first
direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the
teaching of intelligent design. In October 2004 the Dover Area School District changed its biology teaching
curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution. They also recommended
Of Pandas and People was to be used as a reference book. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is
a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both
supporters and critics.
69

On February 21, 2006, the newly elected Dover Area School Board voted, unanimously with one abstention, to
pay 1,000,011 dollars in legal fees and damages due to the parents and their lawyers as a result of the verdict,
which was a large sum of money for a small district. The previous school board had been offered the opportunity
to rescind its policy, and avoid paying legal fees, immediately after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but it declined.
The parents' attorneys Pepper Hamilton stated that court records would show that they were entitled to more
than 2 million dollars. They were going to accept less than half that amount in recognition of the small size of the
school district. In the November 2005 elections, none of the members of the Dover School Board who voted for
70
the intelligent design policy were re-elected, and a new school board that rejected the policy took office.
The Dover suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy, by the Seventh Amendment, right to a jury
trial did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005, before Judge John
E. Jones III, a conservative Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush. On December 20, 2005, Jones
issued his 139-page findings. The ruling was the Dover mandate requiring intelligent design to be taught in class
was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design - ID is not science, and permanently barred the
board from maintaining the intelligent design - ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

68 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Memorandum Opinion, December 20, 2005.

69 Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design', Michael Powell, The Washington Post, December 21, 2005.
70 "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial". National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008.